REASON FOR IMBRA ???

[miker32us 6]

There is more to this story, apparently he was trying to bring several women into the US at the same time thinking the first one to be approved would be the one he married. There are several doumented cases of K-1 fraud where a USC is paid up to $50,000 to bring foreigners into the US. Before this law was passed it was not illegal to do this, now it is.

It looks like this case was one of those cited when IMBRA was signed into law

"These common sense safeguards will protect women like Anastasia King and Susanna Blackwell, whose lives could have been saved if these protections had been in place when they needed them," Larsen said.

"These women didn't know what was legal. They were not on an equal playing field when they got here," said Larsen spokeswoman Abbey Levenshus in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

But something from that article makes me curious

The provision also would end "the wife lottery," Levenshus said.

"Until this law, it was perfectly OK to apply for as many foreign-fiancee visas as you wanted at one particular time. ... and whichever one is approved first is the winner," she said.

Now, American men can only apply for one foreign-fiancee visa at a time.

"We're not trying to stop you from having a second chance" if things don't work out, Levenshus said. "We just don't want you to have six chances at the same time."

She noted that King "already had another fiancee visa in the works when he murdered Anastasia."

Is that true??

[Imbra2005 0]

What about American brides? There is no such law for americans marrying americans. What if married my ex boyfriend from college and he ended up murdering me because I broke up with him? I also would have never known he had a criminal record. You can't exactly do a google search on someone's background.

Maybe they should create this law for EVERYONE.

I don't think this is about protecting foreigners at all. This is just another way to make it even harder for people to come to the US.

Grismar,

As I've explained in other posts, there are very good reasons why the law targets immigrants as opposed to Americans. There is a ton of research that demonstrates that immigrant women are at a significantly higher risk of domestic abuse than their American counterparts. These women frequently arrive in the US not understanding the language, laws or customs of the U.S. Their presence in this country is entirely dependent upon their USC sponsor, who is frequently their abuser. American women, on the other hand, have relatively access to background check information on Americans and know the system a whole lot better than women from the developing countries where the mail order bride agencies recruit from.

[gimygirl 0]

American women, on the other hand, have relatively access to background check information on Americans and know the system a whole lot better than women from the developing countries where the mail order bride agencies recruit from.

absolutely .... both american men and women have access to background checks on other USC's.

unfortunately, this is another law, unless it affects you directly, that people will ###### about. and by affecting you, i mean: your sister, aunt, cousin, etc came to america and was abused/tortured/killed at the hands of someone that has a violent history. you would be outraged that there was no check on the USC.

it's a safety net that adds a bit more of a wait ... but at least you know you will be together. if your criminal background is clean accept the wait and move on to better and more productive issues.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What is in place to protect American women and children from this man? Why aren't we making it a requirement for men to reveal their criminal history before they recieve a fellow Americans contact information? Wouldn't that save Americans?

Bringing someone into this country and then asking the taxpayer to take care of them if the American who brought them here is a criminal is the REASON why. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

[drogger1 0]

For anybody interested in the reason for IMBRA can watch American Justice at A&E at 0100 am EST today. There is a case about mail order bride.

Great. Once again you are OFF TOPIC. Here's an idea I just had, SHUT UP ALREADY.

Jesus, I suppose the case of the russian mail order bride who came to America and killed her new husband for his money didn't register with you?

Let's pass a law against people who post in the wrong forum! The punishment is to read the rules of this site!!!

[Chuckles 0]

What is in place to protect American women and children from this man? Why aren't we making it a requirement for men to reveal their criminal history before they recieve a fellow Americans contact information? Wouldn't that save Americans?

Bringing someone into this country and then asking the taxpayer to take care of them if the American who brought them here is a criminal is the REASON why. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Why is it so hard to comprehend that I like the police check, but hate the law?? Obviously you have not read my messages or the law.

This law DOES not stop a criminal from bringing a foreign spouse to the US, BUT IT DOES presume many people guilty until proven innocent BEFORE THE K1 PROCESS STARTS !!! That is the part I disagree with. I have repeatedly said how adamently I agree with a police check and/or background check for the USC at the time of the K1 filing.

I am not associated with IMB's. I have never used a IMB. My wife is not 'mail-order' and will not arrive in a crate. I am not with any of these ultra women hating groups you see on the internet, I am pro-women's rights, and I am not a criminal nor have I ever been. THIS LAW DOES NOT OR DID NOT EFFECT ME IN THE LEAST.

But I know bad legislation when I see it. Just because there is a problem it doesn't mean every law that addresses it is a good law, and a person who opposes a law is not necessarily for the crime, understand?

Edited June 20, 2006 by Chuckles

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What is in place to protect American women and children from this man? Why aren't we making it a requirement for men to reveal their criminal history before they recieve a fellow Americans contact information? Wouldn't that save Americans?

Bringing someone into this country and then asking the taxpayer to take care of them if the American who brought them here is a criminal is the REASON why. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Why is it so hard to comprehend that I like the police check, but hate the law?? Obviously you have not read my messages or the law.

This law DOES not stop a criminal from bringing a foreign spouse to the US, BUT IT DOES presume many people guilty until proven innocent BEFORE THE K1 PROCESS STARTS !!! That is the part I disagree with. I have repeatedly said how adamently I agree with a police check and/or background check for the USC at the time of the K1 filing.

I am not associated with IMB's. I have never used a IMB. My wife is not 'mail-order' and will not arrive in a crate. I am not with any of these ultra women hating groups you see on the internet, I am pro-women's rights, and I am not a criminal nor have I ever been. THIS LAW DOES NOT OR DID NOT EFFECT ME IN THE LEAST.

But I know bad legislation when I see it. Just because there is a problem it doesn't mean every law that addresses it is a good law, and a person who opposes a law is not necessarily for the crime, understand?

You're points respectively taken. I'm not trying to agitate here, I'm simply stating what makes logical sense to me regarding the law. I know that this issue has been discussed exhaustingly here, combined with everyone's frustrations over the delays it has caused. I hope we can continue to talk about it without it turning sour. Cheers!

[Sacha 0]

I think we are missing the point here, it isn't IMBRA that's causing us grief and frustration but the way it's been implemented.

I feel sick to the stomach when I think that my fiance - the Petitioner - like all other petitioners on here are paying USCIS their wage through taxation and this is the kind of service we are receiving!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This law DOES not stop a criminal from bringing a foreign spouse to the US, BUT IT DOES presume many people guilty until proven innocent BEFORE THE K1 PROCESS STARTS !!! That is the part I disagree with. I have repeatedly said how adamently I agree with a police check and/or background check for the USC at the time of the K1 filing.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm trying to understand how asking the petitioner some questions about their background is presuming guilt? Are you talking about asking whether the petitioner used a marriage broker or not?

[Pete 0]

But I know bad legislation when I see it. Just because there is a problem it doesn't mean every law that addresses it is a good law, and a person who opposes a law is not necessarily for the crime, understand?

Sums up the reality pretty good- thank you for saving me the typing.

Like the premise of "The Colbert Report", people want to "feel" a law is good, regardless of the weight (in this case the lack thereof) of the evidence proving otherwise. It is all puppies and butterflies as long as the law "sounds" good.

To cite emotionally gripping examples, and claiming they were all preventable if IMBRA had only been in effect, is intellectually bankrupt and only panders to the sensationalistic hot-buttons of the masses.

BUT what is always missing are the studies showing causation and linkage.

What studies were conducted? Were meta-studies done? Who were the control groups? What are the facts supporting this "power imbalance" theory? This is IMBRA's whole problem, it is all based on emotion, there are no facts supporting the alleged efficacy of the solution.

Don't cram legislation down my throat that was written in ambiguous and convolution fashion, based on knee-jerk reaction.

There were already laws in place for visa fraud, spousal abuse. Don't create new laws when you don't enforce the ones already in place.

Edited June 20, 2006 by Pete

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But I know bad legislation when I see it. Just because there is a problem it doesn't mean every law that addresses it is a good law, and a person who opposes a law is not necessarily for the crime, understand?

Sums up the reality pretty good- thank you for saving me the typing.

Like the premise of "The Colbert Report", people want to "feel" a law is good, regardless of the weight (in this case the lack thereof) of the evidence proving otherwise. It is all puppies and butterflies as long as the law "sounds" good.

To cite emotionally gripping examples, and claiming they were all preventable if IMBRA had only been in effect, is intellectually bankrupt and only panders to the sensationalistic hot-buttons of the masses.

BUT what is always missing are the studies showing causation and linkage.

What studies were conducted? Were meta-studies done? Who were the control groups? What are the facts supporting this "power imbalance" theory? This is IMBRA's whole problem, it is all based on emotion, there are no facts supporting the alleged efficacy of the solution.

Don't cram legislation down my throat that was written in ambiguous and convolution fashion, based on knee-jerk reaction.

There were already laws in place for visa fraud, spousal abuse. Don't create new laws when you don't enforce the ones already in place.

Perhaps you missed these statistics.

According to USCIS statistics, from the time that VAWA made it possible in 1996 for foreign spouses to leave their abuser and self-petition for their own immigration status through March 2005, approximately 38,000 I-360 applications were filed, 30,672 were approved, and approximately 7200 were denied.

That's 30,000 immigrants on some sort of government assistance. It's not emotional to speculate that many of these American men could have been screened out of the process with the use of criminal background checks. Shoving 30,000 immigrants down the throat of the taxpayer is a bigger pill to swallow than whatever inconvenience IMBRA has caused you personally.

[Taye500 0]

I watched that show... if it's the one about Anastasia from Kyrgyzstan, I don't know if IMBRA would have helped her.

She married a man and went to Washington State, was unhappy, and returned home. He flew there to convince her and her family that everything was OK. Obviously, it wasn't, and she returned with him anyway. Upon arrival back in Washington, he killed her.

IMBRA would've prevented him from bringing her to the US in the first place, but it wouldn't have stopped her from going back a second time. When women are willing (even pressured by their family) to marry men whom they don't even know from "rich" countries, there's always going to be a chance, IMBRA or no IMBRA, that they will be abused once here.

Knowing that you are going to marry a Russian just like that loser (idle King). One would understand why you are supporting that loser !!!

[Chuckles 0]

I watched that show... if it's the one about Anastasia from Kyrgyzstan, I don't know if IMBRA would have helped her.

She married a man and went to Washington State, was unhappy, and returned home. He flew there to convince her and her family that everything was OK. Obviously, it wasn't, and she returned with him anyway. Upon arrival back in Washington, he killed her.

IMBRA would've prevented him from bringing her to the US in the first place, but it wouldn't have stopped her from going back a second time. When women are willing (even pressured by their family) to marry men whom they don't even know from "rich" countries, there's always going to be a chance, IMBRA or no IMBRA, that they will be abused once here.

Knowing that you are going to marry a Russian just like that loser (idle King). One would understand why you are supporting that loser !!!

Mr. King did not marry a Russian woman. You obviously have no idea of anything you speak, so I will ignore you from this point forward Taye.

StevenJinky, I will try to respond to your comments later. I understand where you are coming from and your opinion is certainly valid.

[Imbra2005 0]

But I know bad legislation when I see it. Just because there is a problem it doesn't mean every law that addresses it is a good law, and a person who opposes a law is not necessarily for the crime, understand?

Sums up the reality pretty good- thank you for saving me the typing.

Like the premise of "The Colbert Report", people want to "feel" a law is good, regardless of the weight (in this case the lack thereof) of the evidence proving otherwise. It is all puppies and butterflies as long as the law "sounds" good.

To cite emotionally gripping examples, and claiming they were all preventable if IMBRA had only been in effect, is intellectually bankrupt and only panders to the sensationalistic hot-buttons of the masses.

BUT what is always missing are the studies showing causation and linkage.

What studies were conducted? Were meta-studies done? Who were the control groups? What are the facts supporting this "power imbalance" theory? This is IMBRA's whole problem, it is all based on emotion, there are no facts supporting the alleged efficacy of the solution.

Don't cram legislation down my throat that was written in ambiguous and convolution fashion, based on knee-jerk reaction.

There were already laws in place for visa fraud, spousal abuse. Don't create new laws when you don't enforce the ones already in place.

Pete,

We're dealing with sociological and psychological principles here. They don't lend themselves (at least not ethically) to double-blind controlled studies as you suggest. The government cannot ethically randomly reveal information about the USC to half the immigrants and stay silent to the other half -- in the hopes that sometime in the future, we can look back and compare the relative incidence of domestic abuse to infer a causal relationship. What do you say to all the battered immigrants who weren't in the control group? "Sorry, we were conducting an experiment so we didn't tell you we knew your husband abused and raped his last three foreign wives?" (a real case). We can't put people in a test tube and control the variables here to determine "efficacy" of the law. Seriously, do you really think that for every law there needs to be some demonstrably provable benefit before the law can be passed? Or do you think governments are allowed to use common sense?

Understanding this, Congress can draw its own rational conclusions from the studies that are out there that show the heightened risk of domestic abuse in these relationships. I'll cut and paste from another post that was taken from the most recent study on the topic, "Battered Immigrants and U.S. Citizen Spouses" By Giselle Aguilar Hass, Psy.D., Nawal Ammar, Ph.D., Leslye Orloff, J.D.

There is a growing body of research data demonstrating that immigrant women are a particularly vulnerable group of victims of domestic violence. They tend to have fewer resources, stay longer in the relationship, and sustain more severe physical and emotional consequences as a result of the abuse and the duration of the abuse than other battered women in the United States (Abraham, 2000; Anderson, 1993; Ammar, Orloff, Dutton & Hass, 2005; Ammar & Orloff, 2006; Bui, 2003; Hass, Dutton, & Orloff, 2000; Menjivar & Salcido, 2002; Raj & Silverman, 2002; Raj & Silverman, 2003; Rodriguez, 2004; Valdez, 2005; Warrier, 2002). In particular, research studies have found that abusers of immigrant domestic violence victims actively use their power to control their wife’s and children’s immigration status and threats of deportation as tools that play upon victim’s fears so as to keep their abused spouses and children from seeking help or from calling the police to report the abuse (American Bar Association,1994; Ammar, Orloff, Dutton & Hass, 2005; Natarajan, 2003; Orloff, Dutton, Hass, & Ammar, 2003; Raj & Silverman, 2003; Ramos & Runner, 1999; Raj, Silverman, McCleary-Sills & Liu, 2005).

Battered immigrant women are particularly vulnerable and become trapped in abusive relationships due to their limited English language skills, a lack of knowledge they have about U.S. legal protections and services to help domestic violence victims, financial dependency upon male intimate partners and family members, isolation and lack of social support systems in the United States (Dutton & Hass, 2001, Sullivan & Orloff, 2004). They often experience discrimination and decreased social opportunities due to their minority status, acculturation difficulties, and the social disruption resulting from their experience as immigrants and their lack of legal immigration status. Rodriguez, Nemoto and Mkandawire (2003) found that the rights of immigrant victims are often overlooked by providers who see them as “others”, i.e. not deserving the full protection of the community because of their status as outsiders. Research on domestic violence conducted among immigrants indicates that immigrant women are very often victims of domestic violence due to vulnerability related to their immigration status (Abraham, 2000; Ahmad, Riaz, Barata & Stewart, 2004; Ammar, 2000; Ammar, Orloff, Dutton & Hass, 2005; Ammar & Orloff, 2006; Dutton, Orloff & Hass, 2000; Hass, Dutton, & Orloff, 2000; Orloff & Kaguyutan, 2002; Orloff, Dutton, Hass & Ammar, 2003; Raj & Silverman, 2002; Rodriguez, 2004; Srinivasan & Ivey, 1999).

[Chuckles 0]

This law DOES not stop a criminal from bringing a foreign spouse to the US, BUT IT DOES presume many people guilty until proven innocent BEFORE THE K1 PROCESS STARTS !!! That is the part I disagree with. I have repeatedly said how adamently I agree with a police check and/or background check for the USC at the time of the K1 filing.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm trying to understand how asking the petitioner some questions about their background is presuming guilt? Are you talking about asking whether the petitioner used a marriage broker or not?

First off, I point you back to the part of my messasges where I explain how I think the police checks are a good idea so that of course I am not talking about the petitioner being asked questsions. When you reach K1 stage you open yourself up to your private life being exposed for the safety of your petitioner and the citizens of the USA who you effect by bringing a spouse to America.

The part I am talking about is where a perfectly law abiding citizen needs to submit criminal background history to obtain someone's contact information. You can say 'those who are innocent need not worry', but that is the only people it effects. Criminals won't use websites like this to find their victims. The unscrouplous websites will just circumvent the law and get away with it. Instead of giving direct contact info they will start charging membership fees and inviting Americans to participate, without really putting any effort into getting them to sign up, thereby becoming legal and not requiring background checks.

Basically the law has done nothing but sour the well-meaning person from looking into international dating. I know people will be put off by that term international dating, but it happens and its legit and it doesn't make someone a pervert to be interested in dating someone from outside the US borders. This law tends to make the public feel that way. (just for the wacko's out there, this is not how I met my fiance so stop that post you are making right now, I just believe in freedoms for everyone)

As far as the Anastasia King case, she knew what she was doing. Her well meaning and naive parents did not. I agree whole-heartedly these women can be vunrable and deserve some protection from predetory sex criminals, but IMBRA does not solve this problem. It is a social problem that cannot change overnight with one mis-guided law. Anastasia King and her husband both broke the law by entering into marriage for the sole reason of Anastasia gaining US residence to go to a western medical school and to obtain US citizenship. When Anastasia 'broke' the contract by refusing Mr. King and deciding she wanted to go out on her own, Mr. King, A DELUSIONAL SICK TWISTED MAN, killed her. My point is, they BOTH BROKE THE LAW WHEN THEY USED A K1 VISA FOR THE SOLE PERPOSE OF HER RECIEVING CITIZENSHIP. If this law had been properly enforced then she would be alive today OR she would have gone to Europe or Australia and RAN THE SAME RISK OR MORE STATISTICALLY SPEAKING of marrying a wierdo murderer.

Speaking of which, your wife is Phillipino. Ask her about how horribly women who try to get out of the phillipines get treated by taiwanese men? Talk about an issue with abuse!! If people continue to make it harder for US citizens to met people abroad, abuse of foreign women may actually rise significantly.

As far as the statistics you quote, nearly 8000 of those were revoked immeditely leaving about 23000 cases over the last 10 years, or 2300 cases a year. How many of those were thrown out in court?? You don't know. Those statistics are not good enough to prove anything. Where are the HARD statistics with the in-depths studies devoted to this issue?

At the end of the day, IMBRA is law, and I am not completely unhappy about it. It is good that police checks will be happening. But the ####### attached to it AND ESPECIALLY the way it was rolled out is just another reminder that my personal freedoms are being erroded, and most people are caught up in the emotions of the issues to realize this. Soon we will be like... Russia!!